Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek

The main page states that TAS is considerd non-cannon. TAS has been under review for cannon ^[1]<http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/store/news/article/35135.html</ref> As well as there have been parts of TAS which where picked up by other series making them atleast semi-cannon. ^[2] It should probobly at the very least be noted that the cannon status is under review.

FLJuJitsu 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The animated series article states that TAS is now canon. Is it time to change the guidelines to match? Powers ^T 22:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is there a link reflecting Viacom's? CBS'? decision on this? Insofar as WikiProject guidelines are concerned -- or, at least, actual practice -- I don't see too many articles caught up in canon/non-canon -- definitions of canon are non-NPOV, and canon seems not to be a criteria for inclusion/exclusion in our articles. (More, it's about significance within and outside the franchise.) --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

My personal feeling is that people and places mentioned or seen in TAS appear to be treated as at least semi-canon by the writers, although the specific storylines shown are probably less so. Anyway, the link used in the TAS article is [1], where the official Star Trek site announces that they're adding TAS items to their library/database. The official site now treats characters like M'Ress and Robert April on par with any other canon character. Powers ^T 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Then clearly an addendum should be added to Star trek canon noting this. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That Startrek.com article doesn't say TAS is part of the owners' notion of canon (only an expansion of their site's coverage) -- but, again, canon is a moot point insofar as Wikipedia's coverage is concerned. --EEMIV (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. What is and isn't canon is very important for Wikipedia pages. Lots42 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Whose idea of canon? Roddenberry said, if it appears on screen, it's canon -- except for Star Trek V, which he called apocryphal. Paramount says everything on TV and screen is canon -- except TAS. Some rabid fans say nothing post TMP is canon because Roddenberry wasn't especially involved. And no one rectifies where what appears on screen conflict. Definitions of canon are inherently non-npov; if information is verifiable and significant to the understanding of the character, then it's worth including. Now, as a result of Paramount's policy, not much credence is leant by writers and producers to the books and comics and TAS -- so that material tends to be excluded on the basis of trivia, not canon. Per our own project guidelines, canon status influences the prominence of information, but isn't an inclusion/exclusion criterion. --EEMIV (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

This has been going on for a LOOOOONG time. Deadlock (Star Trek: Voyager), Harry Kim, and Naomi Wildman. Someone or someones keep insisting on chang the text to say that Harry and Naomi are the only original survivors of the original Voyager and that everyone else died and the characters we know from them on are the duplicates. This is untrue. The original Harry and Naomi died. I believe part of this confusing is based on which Voyager destroyed itself to save the others. The damaged Voyager is the original one and it survived while the (mostly) undamaged Voyager is the duplicate and it did not survive. So in conclusion, I'm asking for help in maintaining the three pages to reflect reality. As real as fiction is. Lots42 (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine maintaining clear text explaining that they are duplicates -- but, really, this detail is inconsequential trivia. If it avoids edit warring and makes for clearer prose, this little detail might just be better off excised from the articles. --EEMIV (talk) 01:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree with EEMIV. As a side note, the article in the version I viewed for the episode suggests the original ship is destroyed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know it's many, many months later but I must disagree on the idea of 'inconsequential triva'. If the characters and or episode are important enough to have an article, the fact of the duplication and deaths are very important to said articles. Lots42 (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Considering there's no follow-up to these deaths/destruction in subsequent episodes, it is trivial. Anyhow, the phrasing currently in the articles seems appropriate, without giving undue weight to an event that, while significant in-universe to the characters, is inconsequential to the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, there was follow up, at least regarding Kim. And even if there wasn't, I'd still argue that the events should be kept in. Because it is signifigant in-universe to the characters. Dying and being replaced by a duplicate is signifigant to the 'Fictional history' section. Lots42 (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The timeline of the two versions of the characters only diverged within a single episode. That makes it trivial IMHO. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not technically part of this WikiProject but I thought I'd bring this here before someone brings it to ANI. There appears to be an ongoing edit war at Rick Berman over a lengthy criticism section that overshadows all other relevant info about him. Any help anyone could provide would be great. Thanks. KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've done some editing at it, and agree it's lopsided. Additional eyes and VISORs would be appreciated. --EEMIV (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article is in better shape vis-a-vis NPOV and BLP concerns, but there are still some content gaps. --EEMIV (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am growing a little concerned over some of the sources being offered at Star Trek fan productions. Most of the ones being used are from the website for the project or for from the production company making the film. One such grouping, Star Trek Phoenix had naught but the aforementioned fansite and production company info and a link to the make-up artist (who doesn't appear to have an article in the wiki). This sort of crap sourcing seems disingenuous in that it creates the illusion that the bit is well-sourced when it in all actuality doesn't really meet our RS policy for inclusion. I've removed it once, but I'd like to get some input from the WikiProject before continuing, Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

For a topic such as fan productions, I would expect that there should be reliable secondary sourcing to prove that the productions are worth mentioning in the first place. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bussard_ramjet#In_fiction says:

In the Star Trek fictional universe vessels commonly have magnetic hydrogen collectors, referred to as Bussard collectors or Bussard ramscoops. Those are seemingly fitted on the forward end of the twin "warp nacelles", and have a "reverse" function that allows for spreading hydrogen as well as sucking it in. Starfleet (and presumably similar alien allied vessels) therefore can operate in multiple modes, utilising matter-antimatter total conversion for interstellar flight, and utilising the ramscoop effect while moving at respectable sublight speeds to replenish matter-based fuel reserves. This capability is intended to be used only in emergencies, however. These ships also have diverse application of mass converted to energy (e.g. transporters, replicators, etc.) and therefore monatomic hydrogen and helium provide a ready source of clean nucleons for these purposes.

• 1) Has no cites -- is this canon?
• 2) Can anyone direct me to any articles that we have on Starfleet ship technology? -- I haven't found any yet.

Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I removed almost all the text as blatant original research. I suggest looking through Memory Alpha for information on technology and minutiae. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

From the Star Trek Encyclopedia's entry for "Bussard collectors": The concept of eletromagnetic ramscoops being used to gather fuel for an interstellar vehicle was proposed in 1960 by physicist Robert W. Bussard, after whom the device is named. There's a brief description of the actual fictional device, which basically collects hydrogen and other interstellar gasses for fuel, raw material, etc. I image you'd find much the same in the italicized real-world footnotes of the Star Trek: TNG encyclopedia. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, all. Just to clarify: "the actual fictional device" (Bussard ramjet) is a real-world proposed device, which might possibly actually be used some day. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hiya. {{Startrek2}} and {{Star Trek}} have the potential to be redundant -- but, both have big gaps in what they link, with some random inclusions and some random exclusions. What does the footer include links to Memory Alpha and Star Trek: The Music but not to the list/cats for characters, races, etc? What does the sidebar have links to wars but not to books and games? Why do both skip over the category/list of ships? Heck, neither links to Starship Enterprise. Anyhow, yes, WP:SOFIXIT -- and I'd like to, and might start whacking at it right after I post this, but thought I'd start a conversation here (rather than spread across both templates' talk pages) about whether it's best to move toward using the footer or the sidebar, and to solicit help with organization and clean-up. I'm inclined to go for the footer, since sidebars have the potential to clutter images and "edit" links; that's where I'm going to put my focus. --EEMIV (talk) 12:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that footers are a lot neater and fold away nicely when not needed. They don't foul the main content of the article either. Alastairward (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agree with footers. The long-ass sidebars are just distracting from subject text and mess up formatting. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The footer navbox has been hopped up a bit the last coupla days. It doesn't include direct links to all the in-universe lists/categories, but I think the footer is thorough enough that we can start axing the vertical side-bar from the articles. --EEMIV (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Merge discussion here. Aatrek (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

All right, unless there's other objections, I'm going to swap out the old template for the footer. Aatrek (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think that, with the restart of the franchise via the film, we need to create a side-by-side image of the main characters (ie, a side-by-side image of Shatner/Pine or Nimoy/Quinto, etc) for the infoboxes for that character. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Not necessarily. We're still bound by WP:NFCC which specifies minimal usage. Currently, the 1960s actors are still the culturally recognized players, not the reboot chaps... unless that changes or these plenty of good critical commentary on appearance, there's little defensible reason to go smacking more pictures in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hmm. I understand the criteria of NFCC (which is amazing, considering how often the definition of such morphs with each person discussing it), but a side by side already exists in the Kirk article, and would be pretty easy to duplicate in the other articles. Seeing as the articles are about the fictional characters being represented by real life actors, I think it would be appropriate to note the portrayals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

We're talking almost a hundred hours of appearances for the original actor, versus two hours for the new actors. Putting the new actors in the infobox would be undue weight, I think. Powers ^T 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. Recently, we had a bit of kerfuffle over the usage of fan-series, wherein McCoy was portrayed by John Kelley, for more episodes than Urban. Clearly, using that argument is not going to pass muster. The fact of the matter is, De Kelley is dead, and Urban has been cast in the role of the character, and appears in the film as the fictional character. We have pretty solid references for this, and therefore, it would seem to be in the best interest of the encyclopedia to reflect that De Kelley is not the only man who portrayed the character. Using only Kelley's image implies that the character is only that person. This same argument applies to all of the characters recast in the 2009 film. For better or worse, Shatner is no longer Kirk and Nimoy - for the most part - is no longer Spock. I don't see the undue weight argument as being pertinent here- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you add a multiplier for promotions, critical third-party coverage and viewer eyeballs across hours, Urban probably trumps the fan shows :-). Of those, however, it's the third-party commentary that really matters -- and, as User:David Fuchs pointed out, specifically, appearance. The collage we amalgamated for Kirk is great and all, but its WP:FUR is weak, given the article itself doesn't include any discussion of changes in appearance. Lacking that, I doubt it would hold up at IfD. The culturally-relevant (even prevalent) images/icons of the original crew are a good starting point, but images beyond that seem to be more about being exhaustive in coverage, but without meeting all the points of WP:NFCC. Put another way: we could probably remove every single image from all the character articles without at all affecting our understanding of the topic (except, maybe, for Chekov, because of references to his Monkees-esque hairpiece) -- we should address base NFCC/FUR issues (and corresponding article content) before looking to add even more images to these articles. --EEMIV (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Fan film portrayals in the infobox are out. Consensus over whether Cawley & company belong in the infobox was debated and the answer was a resounding "no." Including his picture there is no different than listing him under "portrayed by" portion of the infobox. Furthermore, the format for split pictures would look awful and I think it's completely unnecessary. Kirk's Shatner is the iconic Kirk. The infobox picture should be of the original actor that played and popularized the character. Erikeltic (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, Erikeltic's very limited experience aside, the argument about fan film portrayals was being used to express the holes in a previously made argument; please try to keep up, E. Maybe take a moment and read the reasons why your personal viewpoint of Kirk as the only one for the infobox is flawed. DIscussions actually entail reading what the people before you have said, and then responding. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were the one who suggested that Cawley should be included in Talk:James_T._Kirk. It was that suggestion to which I was replying. Perhaps you should take a moment and reflect on your personal viewpoint as to why you continue to push the fan film inclusion agenda. Now to the point at hand: I am against including any of the new cast in split pictures in the infobox because the original interpretation of the characters (played by the original actors) is the reason behind the character's Wiki altogether. If this movie was the first and only Star Trek reference to Kirk & Company, I highly doubt that there would be character bios being constructed for the new actors. The only reason why it's even up for discussion is because the characters have been well-established for many years. The original cast and the original interpretation is the cultural reference that is chiefly relevant here. Furthermore, the article "James Kirk" focuses mostly on his time as Captain of the Enterprise. Chris Pine is playing a character that will become that James Kirk, which Shatner played in his prime. So since what should be mostly of concern is Captain Kirk and not Cadet Kirk, Shatner should be given weight over Pine. This is clearly obvious--so much so that the movie will feature Leonard Nimoy as "old" Spock. Nimoy is actually credited in the film as Spock Prime, so pictures of the new actors should be irrelevant since the articles are [again] primarily about the character in their prime. Erikeltic (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Arcayne, your previous comment is the exact kind of antagonistic tone that has derailed and enflamed previous discussions between you and Erikeltic about these articles. You asked the question, and have his answer -- considering your and Erikeltic's ability to change each other's mind is about zero, I'd suggest that in this and in future cases, you opt instead not to respond to his answers at all (and vice versa, Erikeltic, if you ever drop a poll on one of these talk pages and Arcayne offers an answer/opinion with which you don't agree). Erikeltic, I know there's a history of frustration between you too, but you didn't need to throw back the whole "try to keep up" piece. Discussion is great, but I'd ask that you two disengage having said your respective pieces. --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

EEIMIV, you are absolutely right; I was wrong. Erikeltic, please accept my sincere apology. I should not have snapped at you. Just because you have acted poorly on prior occasions doesn't mean I should immediately treat you as if you are going to be antagonistic at every contact. Again, I offer my apologies.

Refocusing my response, I would address that the articles are about the fictional characters of Kirk and crew, not Shatner and cast. I agree that the characters have been developed by their initial portrayers, but as far as that goes, this is an encyclopedia - if someone officially subsumes the role, then the article must take a divergent tone with respect to these subsequent portrayals. This allows us to avoid the fanish tone of Kirk vs. Pine and all that silly nonsense that tends to be more often in a fan forum. And please understand that listing Nimoy before Quinto in the credits (if that is indeed what is occurring - I won't see the movie until next week) as a function of Hollywood, not just the portrayal. The articles about the Star Trek characters are about the entire life of the character, and the argument could easily be made about how the article is simply not about the character only in their prime. The Lost Years provides a lot of cited insight into Kirk's background that happens offscreen. Wesley Crusher also counters that argument rather pointedly - most of the character's presence occurs during the character's callow youth, and not their "prime". - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:David Fuchs, and more or less with User:LtPowers in terms of cultural presence and critical focus. I disagree with User:Arcayne's suggestion that the new actors'/characters somehow "replace" the others because of the recency of their appearance. The underlying actors' connections to the roles -- professionally, as well as in terms of cultural identity -- sit with the 1960s actors (and 1960s performances, hence the TOS-era images). A split picture is an awkward shift in weight; I say, "Nice idea, but no thanks." --EEMIV (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No one is saying that they "replace", them, EEMIV - they have assumed the role, and it would seem therefore encyclopedic to reflect that with a split image of the two official portrayals (as opposed to replacing the old image with the new) . An encyclopedia is not in the business of pandering to sentimentality. Yes, Shatner's performance was endearing (and often amusing), but we aren't talking about - to use one example - Shatner; we are talking about a fictional character called James T. Kirk. Shatner is not Kirk, just as Kirk is not Shatner. I think that looking at this more neutrally will benefit the encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

And Shatner's portrayal of Kirk is the one that is most culturally relevant- the one that Belushi and Carrey have lampooned, the trademark style. It's not pandering to sentimentality, it's just that as bound by NFCC the Shatner image is more important to the article as a whole. There are mounds of information about Shatner's Kirk that dwarf the (also substantial) stuff about Pine. In the future that may change; as it is, there's no evidence that the new Kirk has overtaken the old Kirk in terms of cultural impact. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully, determinations of cultural impact are always going to be subjective assessments, which is why I suggest we find another measuring stick. I am willing to shelve this for the time being, but before we do so, we need to determine under what conditions we an equal viewing of both characters becomes more logical. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

When there is a consensus to do so. Powers ^T 16:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wait, are you suggesting that we need to find a consensus to find another measuring stick, since determinations of cultural impact are always going to be subjective assessments. Coz, frankly, that would appear to be a no-brainer; its far too subjective now. Can you point out any current yardstick for determining such?

'Coz I know you weren't just answering part of my post.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, consensus is the measuring stick. Powers ^T 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I am sorry. That isn't good enough. Cultural impact is not and should not be seen as subjective. We should probably arrive at a consensus as to what is going to serve a sufficient cultural impact for equal footing of Shatner and Pine's official portrayals - unless you are of the opinion that they cannot be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I note that Alec Guiness gets precedence over Ewan MacGregor in the Obi-Wan Kenobi article. If we follow a similar precedent, I'd say it'd have to wait at least until Pine's appeared in 70 episodes, seven films, and a DirecTV commercial as Kirk, and maybe not even then. Powers ^T 23:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

But also note the split images at Doctor (Doctor Who) and Master (Doctor Who). Ausir (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The "metric" for cultural significance stems from what third-party sources say about the topic. When multiple third-party sources start trending toward assertions like, "Hey, Pine as Kirk is as big a deal as Shatner as Kirk," then we shift our coverage appropriately. The overwhelming quantity of academic, reliable material out there focuses on either Shatner as Kirk or, as much as possible, some abstract idea of "Kirk"ness; outside movie reviews, Pine isn't up there. When/if he is, then, again, we shift the weight and focus of our coverage accordingly. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was looking for, EEMIV, not some 'here, go play with something shiny, since its never going to be', which is what Powers essentially offered. I had pretty much considered that as the point of view of some folk, but I asked so as to have them tell me themselves. Two answers in one. Yay. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A whole bunch of text-interface turn-based Star Trek tactical starship games from the 1970's have turned up for deletion at WP:PROD (see WP:PRODSUM for 6 May) with a flimsy excuse for a rationale ("Any evidence of notability?" - a question, not an actual rationale) because if the nominator ever actually read the article, the question would be resolved by the claims made in the article. (which is not the same as actually being true, but nevertheless, it's there). If you wish to keep the articles, just delete the PROD template. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

SPOILERS BELOW STOP READING AFTER THIS:

The 2009 film takes place in an alternate universe and just like the mirror universe articles, material relating to this movie (and rumored equals) should be treated just like the mirror universe (since it too, the 2009 film is on an alternate timeline) Anything after 2233 in the 2009 film's universe is completely different and should be treated as so.

So I propose with James T. Kirk as an example for a the different film universe: James T. Kirk (2009 film) or James T. Kirk (Alternate universe) or something similar, a reader would be confused to know Kirk's father was alive when he was promoted in the TOS universe (and a different date too) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.56.111 (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely unnecessary. I think the current James T. Kirk, Spock and McCoy articles perfectly adequately address the 2009 film (at least structurally). --EEMIV (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do we have a specific citation explicitly stating that this takes place in an "alternate universe"? If not, any assessment of such would constitute taking the "old" Trek and the "newer" Trek and promoting the argument that this is an alternative universe. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and it's included in the three articles I mentioned above. Will expand it to other characters when/if I, or someone else, gets around to them. --EEMIV (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with EEMIV. Erikeltic (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you referring to the single citation of that, or do you have more? What's the hurry? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was agreeing that they should be on one page for now. Erikeltic (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I wasn't actally talking to you. Pardon me for not being specific. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Another one I just saw, from the writers: [2] The idea that this is a parallel universe, not exclusive of the established series and characters, has been a big part of the producer's discussion of the film, to avoid pissing off the canon purists. Dialogue in the movie even delves into it, going somewhat meta about the whole thing. --EEMIV (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that particular segment of dialogue was a bit heavy-handed. =) Powers ^T 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

'K. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

It's already been done on Memory Alpha. So take that at what its worth. It seems petty to have a mirror universe set of articles but not for the 2009 film. The movie makes so many articles different in its alternate universe. Told ya'll so. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.56.111 (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I could only find one mirror universe article, not a whole set. Powers ^T 12:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A few days ago, I had added the auto archival code for MiszaBot; however, on the instructions page, it says that "Before setting up automatic archiving on an article's talk page, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there.". So I wanted to ask everyone here, if there is an actual need for a bot to archive discussions. Thank You. Gman124 ^talk 18:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so. This talk page doesn't see a ton of traffic -- over a couple of years, just four talk-page archives? I don't really have a point of comparison, but I don't remember ever loading this page thinking, "Gee, it sure is taking a long time for it all to download; wish a bot would come by and remove all the detritus. --EEMIV (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I removed it now. --Gman124 ^talk 18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A bit of a mess (IMHO), it looks ugly and isn't terribly user friendly. Is there no neater way to link to the list of episodes? Alastairward (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Resolved here. Aatrek (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This page is freakishly out-of-date. Is there a template we can put on it indicating, "Hey, folks, we haven't updated this in a while and probably won't any time soon. In the meantime, come to Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek"? Would it be kosher just to redirect the portal page here? --EEMIV (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suggest putting the Portal up at WP:MFD; it's kind of improper to have cross-space redirects. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Small world, I actually made some minor cosmetic changes today, including replacing the old, HUGE footer with a color-customized version of {{Star Trek}} called {{Star Trek (portal variant)}}. Aatrek (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I updated the news, tried to sort some coding on the DYK section and added a new featured race. There's something up with the coding on the Monthly Featured article that's preventing me from updating the article, anyone any good with the code? Alastairward (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I got it to work; you didn't include "May 2009" in the link. Aatrek (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

D'oh, thank you! Alastairward (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A couple of articles refer to "The Cage". Per the MOS, most of them give a year after -- 1964 or 65 (there's some variation). Catch is, "The Cage" didn't air in its entirety until much later, although it was assembled, edited, and presented to NBC in the mid-60s. I'm just double-checking that its appropriate to identify e.g. the Enterprise's first appearance as "The Cage" -- certainly it "appeared" in 1964/65 (filming ended '64; it was rejected officially in '65). Or is it more appropriate to cite "Where No Man Has Gone Before", the first *widely scene* appearance? Thoughts? --EEMIV (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi everybody, I've revamped most of the existing templates into standard formatting, styles, and categories. Thoughts? Aatrek (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

A whole bunch of pages link (and redirect!) to List of Star Trek planets, which is a ridiculous excuse for a page. Any thoughts on what do do here? Aatrek (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Go through the pages one-by-one and fix the links and redirects? Powers ^T 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I was hoping for something simpler. I guess I'll add it to the list! Aatrek (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Super Star Trek has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Article alerts allow the project to see when articles are up for deletion, nomination, review etc. It might be a good time to remind everyone. Alastairward (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That only works if they're properly tagged. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Riverside, Iowa keeps having random people say that Kirk's birth, long-established at Riverside, has been proven wrong by this new movie. Not being familiar with Star Trek, I've reverted because new movies don't generally override what's long been held. Is this an exception? I'll continue reverting this claim as long as it's in its present format, unless discussion here holds that the IPs' opinion is correct. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

The new movie creates an "alternate, parallel" timeline; it does not trump or erase the events depicted in the original series and subsequent films/spin-offs. Riverside continues to claim Kirk as its future son (see trekfest.com, scheduled for June 2009). It would be appropriate to list this event, or its connection to Kirk, but more clearly framed in terms of "the version of Kirk portrayed by Shatner in the original series" (but less awkwardly). --EEMIV (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Kirk was born after the incursion by Nero's ship and the subsequent timeline split. We do not know if Kirk was born on board the Kelvin in the original timeline or not, so Riverside's claim is not wholly invalidated. Powers ^T 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know. I mean, his mother was pretty much in labor as Nero's ship emerged from the black hole, so it appears he would have been born on the Kelvin anyway. He still grew up in Iowa. If I was born on a cruise ship and then moved to L.A., I'd still say I was from California. Aatrek (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply